the worker proposal mentioned above has a daily pay of 200k BTS, which will be transferred to the 2 operation accounts for subsequent use, with the collected bitCNY and bitUSD market fees.

below are some suggested principles for the open market operation, surely the principle will be refined in the future.

1.the purpose of the fund is to adjust the supply of smartcoins, so operators need to decide depend on the market condition, borrow smartcoins and buy BTS while the smartoin is in shortage, sell BTS and reduce debt position while the smartcoin is over supplied.

2. operators need to take good care while operate with debt positions, as an initial rough principle, when BTS price is under 2CNY:while collateral ratio > 4, borrowing more smartcoin is allowed.while 4>collateral ratio>3, smartcoin income can be used to buy more BTS, but borrowing more smartcoin is not allowed.while 3>collateral ratio, smartcoin income need to be used to reduce debt position, buying more BTS is not allowed.

3.when more than 10M BTS are accumulated in one operator account, the account need to be locked by setting both active key and owner key to committee-account, a new operation account will be created for subsequent operation.

hope the worker proposal be approved then we can get great power to cultivate the smartcoin ecosystem and also the whole BTS ecosystem.

After reviewing the last post, I now feel it's better to call them "open market operation" than "market value management", here the operator is like central bank, it trade in the market to adjust the supply of smartcoins and BTS.

Now smartcoins like bitCNY have big demand, but are always in serious shortage, this limit the adoption of smartcoins and also the development of trading in DEX.

So currently the main policy of the open market operation is to buy more BTS, and create more smartcoins, mainly bitCNY by borrowing.

As the income from market fee is limited, normally 10k-30k, so I suggest to add fund from reserve pool with a worker proposal.

Now Bitshares has daily budget of about 310k, among them about 240k are go into refund400k work proposal and return to the reserve pool.

I suggest to create a new worker proposal “committee controlled open market operation fund” to replace refund400k, each day about 240k BTS will be collected, with a higher than 4 collateral ratio, more than 50k bitCNY can be borrowed and be used to buy BTS.

We need to make good use of the 1 billion BTS in reserve pool，

I understand that borrowing smartcoin based on collateralizing public BTS bring risk to the system, however the risk is tolerable.

The operation account is a multisig account of committee members under public supervising, not possible to set too lower collateral ratio. When BTS price is under 2CNY, it will be safe enough to set the collateral ratio higher than 4, right?

Committee-account has continuous smart coin income to reduce the risk.

Even the worst thing happen, the result is that the collateralized BTS be sold at a price 10% lower than the market price, no further hurt to the system.

On the other hand, if we just leave the 1 billion BTS sleep in the reserve pool, surely we avoid all the risks, but at the same time we give up the chance to supply more smart coins, create more purchasing power and income and make BTS great.

I believe a community with courage and vision will select to go ahead with tolerable risks.

I'll take the current market conditions into considerations when next talking about the BBF worker proposal. So far, it used to buy bitUSD off the market and did not go short on bitUSD yet.The reasons was mainly due to liabilities against the actual workers that have a right for their pay and going short adds a risk .. as well as for accounting which needs to be transparent and easy to follow ...I'll re-iterate with the BBF over the previous decision to stick with "buying" ..

I agree with and support bitcrab's proposal, including replacing refund400k and using the 240k BTS to create 50k bitCNY on a daily basis. Much better use of the BTS than returning to the reserve pool and moreover will let the community monitor progress and impact of the open market operations with a relatively small but gradually increasing number of BTS. Please implement as soon as possible, this is exactly what Bitshares needs!

Now smartcoins like bitCNY have big demand, but are always in serious shortage, this limit the adoption of smartcoins and also the development of trading in DEX.

BitUSD has also a shortage else the prices of other coins on DEX wouldn't be 10% under market value against bitUSD when market is going downwards.The max. loss of 10% is also not right because if the amount of collateral is big there is not enough liquidity to buy such a big amount instantly which could lead to bigger loss if prices keep moving down.

I'm for more liquidty in bitUSD and bitCNY which is badly needed however it needs an update in collateral system first to be able to handle big collateral amounts in a proper way

Sounds like a fair enough experiment, however I feel these are to jump start the market and should not be permanent.

-Is there a set liquidity goal where the worker will not be required any longer?-Plan of action to maintain that 4x collateral ratio in big price down trends? Committee will need to act quick, perhaps daily adjustments required?-Phase out plan to settle all the outstanding debt if liquidity reaches x goal?

Sounds like a fair enough experiment, however I feel these are to jump start the market and should not be permanent.

-Is there a set liquidity goal where the worker will not be required any longer?-Plan of action to maintain that 4x collateral ratio in big price down trends? Committee will need to act quick, perhaps daily adjustments required?-Phase out plan to settle all the outstanding debt if liquidity reaches x goal?

in my opinion it is not defined permanent, but possibly it will last long time.a metric to decide how to operate is whether bitCNY/bitUSD is over supplied or is in shortage, and the fund need to have enough BTS/smartcoin to give apparent impact to the market while necessary.I can not tell "how much BTS/smartcoin" does this fund need?" but I think the answer will be clear half or one year later.I prefer to not let the committee-account to operate each trade/borrowing, let smaller team - committee-cnytrader and committee-trade to do the trade and borrowing activity, committee-account can be responsible for the distribution of the BTS get from the worker proposal.if sometime in the future a clear trend begin that smartcoin continuely behaves as over supplied, then the the fund will begin to sell BTS and reduce debt position. however, I don't think we should set "close debt position" as a final goal.

I'll take the current market conditions into considerations when next talking about the BBF worker proposal. So far, it used to buy bitUSD off the market and did not go short on bitUSD yet.The reasons was mainly due to liabilities against the actual workers that have a right for their pay and going short adds a risk .. as well as for accounting which needs to be transparent and easy to follow ...I'll re-iterate with the BBF over the previous decision to stick with "buying" ..

something depend on the purpose and operate logic of the worker proposals, the "committee controlled open market operation fund" WP is to give impact to smartcoin supply like a central bank, so definitely it can add more smartcoin supply to the market only by borrowing, buying smartcoin in the market will not help to increase the smartcoin supply.

Over 1 billion BTS are sleeping, it is really a big waste, we need to make good use of it.

Generally I agree with bitcrab's proposal, especially in such market situation.

However, I would also suggest that all actions need to be fully discussed and conducted publicly, just like what the Federal Reserve does.

Also, the fund in the inflation pool is different from the fees pool, it is better to be used to create the buy wall to avoid further price drop, instead of simply buying up the price. When the price of BTS goes up, we may even sell to close the debt position. Anyway, 4 times of collateral is not 100% percent safe in extreme market situation.

Frankly speaking this suggestion should be formulated shorter like this: "Let's pump bts using reserve pool funds!"IMHO, the pumping is definitely NOT that thing that Bitshares need "to make Bitshares great again". If somebode wants to pump let him do it with his own funds and not with the reserve pool. This suggestion smels like market manipulation in it's worse kind.

Frankly speaking this suggestion should be formulated shorter like this: "Let's pump bts using reserve pool funds!"IMHO, the pumping is definitely NOT that thing that Bitshares need "to make Bitshares great again". If somebode wants to pump let him do it with his own funds and not with the reserve pool. This suggestion smels like market manipulation in it's worse kind.

I don't think this suggestion is "pumping BTS", I think I have expressed clearly that the point is to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition".

I think BTS will be great if the problem of smartcoin shortage can be resolved with the help of these open market operations.

I think and also hope this suggestion can help BTS price to go up, but this is not the logic base to do open market operations.

I don't think this suggestion is "pumping BTS", I think I have expressed clearly that the point is to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition".

You are going to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition". This means that you will try to make actions like Central Banks in most of countries do (they make money emission). And I am sure this actions will be directed to move BTS price up. That's why I say it's "pump". You are going to implement something like "monetary policy" of "Central Bank of Bitshares " and going to decide when buy additional quantity of BTS and when sell it.

But:

1. When Central Banks realize their monetary policy they have calculations and clear vision about the final result. There is no any calculation in your suggestion. You just say "let's try and then we'll see result".

2. Constant changes in the market condition is the nature of every markets, especially in cryptomarkets. This makes it extremely difficult (if at all possible) for any regulations to archive their goals in the longterm.

There are some detail suggestion,How about we define the 'over supply' and 'under supply' by comparing the current price with feed price? if the currenct price is less than feed price, such as 5%, the fund starts borrowing and buyingn untile 4x. if more than feed price such as 6%, the fund starts selling bts and refund.

We should borrow some BTS to generate BitCNY with an collateral ratio of 5. The fees from the BitCNY and BitUSD can buy BTS and refund the borrowed BTS.

But what is the technical problem for not having enough BitCNY now? We need more FIAT/BitFIAT exchanges.

The problem is that each and every other coin is at least 10% undervalued on bitusd/bitcny pair.That also means the 10% lower price on margin calls have no effect anymore since there is no possibility to buy cheap BTS on DEX to sell them on external exchanges with profit and to send the new coin back to DEX to buy bitcny/bitusd to eat the margin call quickly.Since there is a leck of bitusd/bitcny liquidity prices of other coins are already 10% under market price and its impossible even when buying the 10% cheaper BTS from margin call to bring funds back to DEX with any profit.In short words the feature of 10% lower margin call price has no effect at all because there is a lack of bitusd and bitcny.

I don't think this suggestion is "pumping BTS", I think I have expressed clearly that the point is to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition".

You are going to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition". This means that you will try to make actions like Central Banks in most of countries do (they make money emission). And I am sure this actions will be directed to move BTS price up. That's why I say it's "pump". You are going to implement something like "monetary policy" of "Central Bank of Bitshares " and going to decide when buy additional quantity of BTS and when sell it.

But:

1. When Central Banks realize their monetary policy they have calculations and clear vision about the final result. There is no any calculation in your suggestion. You just say "let's try and then we'll see result".

2. Constant changes in the market condition is the nature of every markets, especially in cryptomarkets. This makes it extremely difficult (if at all possible) for any regulations to archive their goals in the longterm.

yes, we may need to introduce economists or CFA to provide more professional analysis and suggestions.

but, I don't think my suggestion is based on nothing, I have suggested to change the force settlement offset compensation and limit to current level, I provide about 20% of current bitCNY and bitUSD supply, I helped magicwallet to build the biggest bitCNY/CNY C2C exchange market, I believe I have enough understanding to the markets.

the so called "Bitshares Central Bank" now has a simple but solid logic base to start, A perfect analysis infrastructure is not ready yet, if you can help to build one, thanks a lot.

If bitcrab's suggestions will be accepted, it's needed to get back 0% fee for bitCNY and bitUSD.

0.1% fee for bit-assets is a workaround to solve the issue at the expense of holders' pockets. There are many people how use bots and bring a liquidity on CNY and USD pairs. 0% for bit-assets was one of a big advantage of Bitshares DEX.

If bitcrab's suggestions will be accepted, it's needed to get back 0% fee for bitCNY and bitUSD.

0.1% fee for bit-assets is a workaround to solve the issue at the expense of holders' pockets. There are many people how use bots and bring a liquidity on CNY and USD pairs. 0% for bit-assets was one of a big advantage of Bitshares DEX.

The 0.1% market fee should be only a temporary thing in a bear market like now. What happens with the trading fees now?

while 4>collateral ratio>3, smartcoin income can be used to buy more BTS, but borrowing more smartcoin is not allowed.while 3>collateral ratio, smartcoin income need to be used to reduce debt position, buying more BTS is not allowed.

What will happen with income from worker in these cases? Will it be used to increase collateral?

Is that really serious? Are you guys using the reserve funds to operate in the market?

Do I need to remember you that the whole point of SmartCoins is not to have someone with KEYs trying to set the price of the market?

I'm again very disappointed with the BTS community and committee for allowing this.

Seems to me like you don't want BTS to succeed... When things start to work out correctly someone comes with some BS to fuck it up.

This and that new fucking 0.1% fee set arbitrary on BitCNY and BitUSD smartcoins are the new middle finger from BTS to the business models that were being built around it.

Please if somebody can please point me out to the proposals for all this.

Is the main issue the market fees or that the commitee wants to create SmartCoins?

Anyways, what I am wondering:

The worker proposal that should be created soon by the commitee is asking 200.000 BTS a day, which means that there is not much room for other workers. What happens if the sum of all workers is greater than the maximum daily payout?

What is the maximum amount of SmartCoins to be created this way?

Why is the proposal dated until 2035-12-31T00:00:00? That is way more than testing market operations

As far as 1. is concerned, it currently leaves about 40000 bts /daily available. That is almost 200k USD/month at current prices...

Considering the workers already voted in, it seems more than enough for any upcoming worker.

In any case, the idea is for this worker to function similarly to the refund400k one and have variable payment after all other workers have been paid. So we expect the community to vote responsibly.

One main difference is that the refund worker pays back to the refund pool, which is controlled via BTS vote, whereas the committee accounts are controlled via commitee vote. This creates very centralized power expecially with the set end time and amount of daily pay.

I understand one could simply downvote the worker then, but it is a fact that letting things run happens easier than revoting it. I support the initiative though, just questioning the extent.

This seems like a horrible idea. Let the markets evolve naturally. Spend money on quality development or just put it in the bank. We can start to reduce the supply and thus increase the value which will entice more people to the environment and grow bitshares further. Artificially affecting the beautiful decentralized markets seem contra to the ideas of the community.

This seems like a horrible idea. Let the markets evolve naturally. Spend money on quality development or just put it in the bank. We can start to reduce the supply and thus increase the value which will entice more people to the environment and grow bitshares further. Artificially affecting the beautiful decentralized markets seem contra to the ideas of the community.

The voting works again in the UI so this worker proposal can be reviewed.

In the first post from bitcrab only contains suggested principles, is it possible that the committee reviews this and formulates a precise worker proposal? The ask is immense and I think the constraints should be put down exactly.

The voting works again in the UI so this worker proposal can be reviewed.

In the first post from bitcrab only contains suggested principles, is it possible that the committee reviews this and formulates a precise worker proposal? The ask is immense and I think the constraints should be put down exactly.

And who will be the operators controlling the accounts until locked?

I would still be interested in a clarification of my questions, or is that information committee only?

This seems like a horrible idea. Let the markets evolve naturally. Spend money on quality development or just put it in the bank. We can start to reduce the supply and thus increase the value which will entice more people to the environment and grow bitshares further. Artificially affecting the beautiful decentralized markets seem contra to the ideas of the community.

this.

I too agree with this. Let's not emulate the obviously poor policies of a corrupt organization like the U.S. FED. I realize some who voiced an opinion here don't believe central planing of an economy is bad, but I certainly do. Let's "Let the market decide" was is an appropriate level of liquidity. Anything else I feel is risky and the funds would be better spent on other things we need more.

If this WP is to be implemented, at least let the WP be written with a short time period, as xeroc and clockwork suggest.

today is the first day that BTS from reserve pool are claimed and put into the operation plan, it's just a beginning, no significant effect to the market yet, however, while 200k BTS/day keep coming, the accumulated BTS in the operator accounts will show the power step by step.

with the coming hard fork to improve the margin call rule. BTS price will get great power to go up, let's keep on watching.

This seems like a horrible idea. Let the markets evolve naturally. Spend money on quality development or just put it in the bank. We can start to reduce the supply and thus increase the value which will entice more people to the environment and grow bitshares further. Artificially affecting the beautiful decentralized markets seem contra to the ideas of the community.

this.

I too agree with this. Let's not emulate the obviously poor policies of a corrupt organization like the U.S. FED. I realize some who voiced an opinion here don't believe central planing of an economy is bad, but I certainly do. Let's "Let the market decide" was is an appropriate level of liquidity. Anything else I feel is risky and the funds would be better spent on other things we need more.

If this WP is to be implemented, at least let the WP be written with a short time period, as xeroc and clockwork suggest.

US FED is not perfect, but we can not imagine how US financial system work without such an organization.

totally decentralization is not always beautiful, in many cases decentralization means low efficiency and blindness. on the other hand, committee is voted by stake holders and do the necessary decision and execution. committee members can be voted out at any time. as a committee member I think we need a committee with deep understanding to the ecosystem and execution power to push things ahead. it's the amazing DPoS!

I would like to see a precise formulation of this worker before going forward, also an overview of the history therewith would be appreciated. But I am but a lone voice it seems ..How is the BTS inflow split so far? I know there was 2 million initially, plus worker pay plus bitCNY/bitUSD fee. What are the absolute numbers there, is it still necessary to keep market fees on the bitAsset?

To your question:I can tell you if you formula is mathematically sound, but I can't tell you if it makes sense. Do you have any further explanation on the intended goals of the formula?

The general question here is how much risk is the BitShares DAC willing to take. Using a collateral ratio of only 2x would by high risk while 10x can be considered "low risk".A reasonable answer is probably in between but highly depends on market conditions.I do like the proposal linking the collateral ratio to the price level in general and would like to emphasis that any formula used today can (and should) be tuned an revised later on.However, I am not a financial expert and lack the expertise to have a well-founded opinion about this and thus would ask to go rather high on collateral ratio and low on risk.

The general question here is how much risk is the BitShares DAC willing to take. Using a collateral ratio of only 2x would by high risk while 10x can be considered "low risk".A reasonable answer is probably in between but highly depends on market conditions.I do like the proposal linking the collateral ratio to the price level in general and would like to emphasis that any formula used today can (and should) be tuned an revised later on.However, I am not a financial expert and lack the expertise to have a well-founded opinion about this and thus would ask to go rather high on collateral ratio and low on risk.

I would like to see a precise formulation of this worker before going forward, also an overview of the history therewith would be appreciated. But I am but a lone voice it seems ..How is the BTS inflow split so far? I know there was 2 million initially, plus worker pay plus bitCNY/bitUSD fee. What are the absolute numbers there, is it still necessary to keep market fees on the bitAsset?

To your question:I can tell you if you formula is mathematically sound, but I can't tell you if it makes sense. Do you have any further explanation on the intended goals of the formula?

@bitcrab: I'll have to remove my support for the worker "committee controlled open market operation fund".The reasons are the *potential* conflict of interst that emerged with SPRING. Given that SPRING is a marketmaking fund, and the worker is funding another fund for providing liquidity, I believe it is best to not continuesubsidizing open market operations through a worker and leave the bussiness for SPRING (and other for-profitcompetitors). This also puts you (@bitcrab) in a much nicer situation as you don't need to justify why you tradedwhen since you potentially could have SPRING trade against the open market worker.Surely you understand my reasoning.

2. operators need to take good care while operate with debt positions, as an initial rough principle, when BTS price is under 2CNY:while collateral ratio > 4, borrowing more smartcoin is allowed.while 4>collateral ratio>3, smartcoin income can be used to buy more BTS, but borrowing more smartcoin is not allowed.while 3>collateral ratio, smartcoin income need to be used to reduce debt position, buying more BTS is not allowed.

Both accounts are clearly under Ratio of 3 and were not allowed to buy any BTS

Also big part of commitee funds buy orders are also under spring trader buy orders .....

as BTS price now grow up to above 2CNY, now it's time to adjust the rule to determine minimum collateral ratio in open market operation fund account.

we need the minimum ratio to increase with feed price, with a nonlinear decreasing rate。

I found below formula is likely a suitable choice, in the next price stage it will be used to determine the minimum collateral rate.

please advise if you have any ideas on this.

this is the initial logic design at the start time of OMO, now when check it again, seems it is a little too conservative.

the OMO has an advantage that other funds do not have, it has daily income of 200K BTS and also bitCNY&bitUSD market fees, so it is more powerful to resist risks - when risk appear, we can use the new coming BTS and smarcoins to increase the ratio.

now the cnytrader team do the trading based on some other logic, mainly on the margin call price and the "bottom price" in our mind, we now suppose the price of about 0.75CNY is the bottom price and it's safe enough to set the margin call price at this point.

yes, tomorrow we'll use the new coming funds to increase the ratio.

and, actually I hope committee members from USD world can take care the committee-usdoperator account and do the bitUSD trading tasks, no problem to remove me from the multisig of committee-usdoperator.

this is the initial logic design at the start time of OMO, now when check it again, seems it is a little too conservative.

the OMO has an advantage that other funds do not have, it has daily income of 200K BTS and also bitCNY&bitUSD market fees, so it is more powerful to resist risks - when risk appear, we can use the new coming BTS and smarcoins to increase the ratio.

now the cnytrader team do the trading based on some other logic, mainly on the margin call price and the "bottom price" in our mind, we now suppose the price of about 0.75CNY is the bottom price and it's safe enough to set the margin call price at this point.

yes, tomorrow we'll use the new coming funds to increase the ratio.

and, actually I hope committee members from USD world can take care the committee-usdoperator account and do the bitUSD trading tasks, no problem to remove me from the multisig of committee-usdoperator.

You are already planning future RP funds which i disagree.Many members already stated that this fund is already to big and leave peanuts for other WP .

this is the initial logic design at the start time of OMO, now when check it again, seems it is a little too conservative.

the OMO has an advantage that other funds do not have, it has daily income of 200K BTS and also bitCNY&bitUSD market fees, so it is more powerful to resist risks - when risk appear, we can use the new coming BTS and smarcoins to increase the ratio.

now the cnytrader team do the trading based on some other logic, mainly on the margin call price and the "bottom price" in our mind, we now suppose the price of about 0.75CNY is the bottom price and it's safe enough to set the margin call price at this point.

yes, tomorrow we'll use the new coming funds to increase the ratio.

and, actually I hope committee members from USD world can take care the committee-usdoperator account and do the bitUSD trading tasks, no problem to remove me from the multisig of committee-usdoperator.

You are already planning future RP funds which i disagree.Many members already stated that this fund is already to big and leave peanuts for other WP .

You can't take future RP funds hostage

the funds is not big enough considering it's obligation. and this WP is helping to maintain the BTS price and thus maintain the value of the BTS balance in each WP.

any WP that need fund can try to attract voting to make itself above the OMO WP and get money.

this is the initial logic design at the start time of OMO, now when check it again, seems it is a little too conservative.

the OMO has an advantage that other funds do not have, it has daily income of 200K BTS and also bitCNY&bitUSD market fees, so it is more powerful to resist risks - when risk appear, we can use the new coming BTS and smarcoins to increase the ratio.

now the cnytrader team do the trading based on some other logic, mainly on the margin call price and the "bottom price" in our mind, we now suppose the price of about 0.75CNY is the bottom price and it's safe enough to set the margin call price at this point.

yes, tomorrow we'll use the new coming funds to increase the ratio.

and, actually I hope committee members from USD world can take care the committee-usdoperator account and do the bitUSD trading tasks, no problem to remove me from the multisig of committee-usdoperator.

You are already planning future RP funds which i disagree.Many members already stated that this fund is already to big and leave peanuts for other WP .

You can't take future RP funds hostage

the funds is not big enough considering it's

Quote

obligation

. and this WP is helping to maintain the BTS price and thus maintain the value of the BTS balance in each WP.

any WP that need fund can try to attract voting to make itself above the OMO WP and get money.

Which obligation are you taking about ?

1. Charge market fee for smarcoins like bitCNY and bitUSD.

2.Use the collected fee to buy BTS.

3. Borrow bitCNY/bitUSD by putting the bought BTS into collateral with high collateral ratio and continue to buy in BTS.

1.the purpose of the fund is to adjust the supply of smartcoins, so operators need to decide depend on the market condition, borrow smartcoins and buy BTS while the smartoin is in shortage, sell BTS and reduce debt position while the smartcoin is over supplied.

2. operators need to take good care while operate with debt positions, as an initial rough principle, when BTS price is under 2CNY:while collateral ratio > 4, borrowing more smartcoin is allowed.while 4>collateral ratio>3, smartcoin income can be used to buy more BTS, but borrowing more smartcoin is not allowed.while 3>collateral ratio, smartcoin income need to be used to reduce debt position, buying more BTS is not allowed.

3.when more than 10M BTS are accumulated in one operator account, the account need to be locked by setting both active key and owner key to committee-account, a new operation account will be created for subsequent operation.

You are in breach of every single point of your WP.Maybe you can show me the obligation you are talking about in your WP that it needs to "to maintain the BTS price" cause maybe i'm blind and i can't see it.

yes, OMO bought a lot BTS in obviously higher price comparing to today's BTS price, as most of the trading are done before 8th, Aug, at that time bitCNY is still in premium and it's not easy to predict that a big bear is coming to the market.

I believe either 1.148bitCNY or 0.177USD is not very high price for BTS, BTS will go above these prices in the future, and, more importantly, to provide liquidity of bitCNY and bitUSD, rather than making profit is the No.1 purpose of OMO.

we learnt a lot in the past several months, we saw that in the big bear market, OMO is not able to prevent BTS price from falling down rapidly, it is not able to prevent the speeding up margin call/price falling, however, after 719 hard fork and BSIP42 implementation, we saw that the rule change helps a lot to prevent the speeding up margin call/price falling in bear market.

rules here is much more important than fund, after 719 and BSIP42, the system itself can adjust the supply according to the demand, now OMO is not so necessary as we have imagined.

now another worker proposal that need a >100K BTS daily pay is under discussion, if finally it can be voted active I think it will be good for that worker proposal to replace the OMO proposal.

As far as I can tell, bitUSD still lacks of supply and liquidity, major reasons are BBF (as escrow of workers) and bitSpark are demanding/hoarding significant amounts while not many people want to or can afford to create more supply.

bitCNY on the other hand is fine so far since there are much more creators, probably due to convenient on/off ramps.